U.S. Scientists Say They Are Told to Alter
FindingsMore than 200 Fish and Wildlife researchers cite cases where conclusions
were
reversed to weaken protections and favor business, a survey finds. 10 February 2005

More than 200 scientists employed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service say they have been directed to alter official findings to
lessen protections for plants and animals, a survey released Wednesday says.

The survey of the agency's scientific staff of 1,400 had a 30% response rate and
was conducted jointly by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees
for Environmental Responsibility.

A division of the Department of the Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service is
charged with determining which animals and plants should be placed on the
endangered species list and designating areas where such species need to be
protected.

More than half of the biologists and other researchers who responded to the
survey said they knew of cases in which commercial interests, including timber,
grazing, development and energy companies, had applied political pressure to
reverse scientific conclusions deemed harmful to their business.

Bush administration officials, including Craig Manson, an assistant secretary of
the Interior who oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service, have been critical of
the 1973 Endangered Species Act, contending that its implementation has imposed
hardships on developers and others while failing to restore healthy populations
of wildlife.

Along with Republican leaders in Congress, the administration is pushing to
revamp the act. The president's proposed budget calls for a $3-million reduction
in funding of Fish and Wildlife's endangered species programs.

"The pressure to alter scientific reports for political reasons has become
pervasive at Fish and Wildlife offices around the country," said Lexi Shultz of
the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Mitch Snow, a spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the agency had
no comment on the survey, except to say "some of the basic premises just aren't
so."

The two groups that circulated the survey also made available memos from Fish
and Wildlife officials that instructed employees not to respond to the survey,
even if they did so on their own time. Snow said that agency employees could not
use work time to respond to outside surveys.

Fish and Wildlife scientists in 90 national offices were asked 42 questions and
given space to respond in essay form in the mail-in survey sent in November.

One scientist working in the Pacific region, which includes California, wrote:
"I have been through the reversal of two listing decisions due to political
pressure. Science was ignored and worse, manipulated, to build a bogus rationale
for reversal of these listing decisions."

More than 20% of survey responders reported they had been "directed to
inappropriately exclude or alter technical information."

However, 69% said they had never been given such a directive. And, although more
than half of the respondents said they had been ordered to alter findings to
lessen protection of species, nearly 40% said they had never been required to do
so.

Sally Stefferud, a biologist who retired in 2002 after 20 years with the agency,
said Wednesday she was not surprised by the survey results, saying she had been
ordered to change a finding on a biological opinion.

"Political pressures influence the outcome of almost all the cases," she said.
"As a scientist, I would probably say you really can't trust the science coming
out of the agency."

A biologist in Alaska wrote in response to the survey: "It is one thing for the
department to dismiss our recommendations, it is quite another to be forced
(under veiled threat of removal) to say something that is counter to our best
professional judgment."

Don Lindburg, head of the office of giant panda conservation at the Zoological
Society of San Diego, said it was unrealistic to expect federal scientists to be
exempt from politics or pressure.

"I've not stood in the shoes of any of those scientists," he said. "But it is
not difficult for me to believe that there are pressures from those who are not
happy with conservation objectives, and here I am referring to development
interest and others.

"But when it comes to altering data, that is a serious matter. I am really sorry
to hear that scientists working for the service feel they have to do that.
Changing facts to fit the politics that is a very unhealthy thing. If I were a
scientist in that position I would just refuse to do it."

The Union of Concerned Scientists and the public employee group provided copies
of the survey and excerpts from essay-style responses.

One biologist based in California, who responded to the survey, said in an
interview with The Times that the Fish and Wildlife Service was not interested
in adding any species to the endangered species list.

"For biologists who do endangered species analysis, my experience is that the
majority of them are ordered to reverse their conclusions [if they favor
listing]. There are other biologists who will do it if you won't," said the
biologist, who spoke on condition of anonymity.